10 ms·

As an EU citizen, I hope large portions of the internet will just block us. A couple of days without YouTube, Wikipedia and other services would create sufficie

As an EU citizen, I hope large portions of the internet will just block us. A couple of days without YouTube, Wikipedia and other services would create sufficient outrage to put pressure on the EU for introducing these idiotic laws. I mean, GDPR is bad enough for start ups, but Article 13?

jaifraic 8y ago
GDPR is just fine, if you've got your shit together and has some actual benefits for users, like being able to request all my saved data and its deletion. And of course disallowing websites handing my data to every possible ad network without my consent.
confounded 8y ago
Article 13 is terrible not because it’s terrible for start-ups, it’s terrible because it’s terrible for people. I’m pretty close to the rough-end of GDPR in my current job, but it represents real benefits for millions of people. If you asked them what’s a reasonable way to treat their data, I believe the GDPR is close-ish to what a lot of Europeans would want. Or, at least a shift in the right direction. Article 13 on the other hand is what you get if you ask rights-holders groups what they want, and poses a direct threat to freedom of expression for millions of Europeans.
- orangecat 8y ago
  If you asked them what’s a reasonable way to treat their data, I believe the GDPR is close-ish to what a lot of Europeans would want. I'm pretty sure that if you asked people whether they would prefer to pay for Facebook and Google with cash or by sharing data for ad targeting, most would choose the latter. The GDPR specifically forbids that option. Article 13 on the other hand is what you get if you ask rights-holders groups what they want, and poses a direct threat to freedom of expression for millions of Europeans. And it demonstrates the impossibility of having a powerful bureaucracy that does only the things that you want.
  - sametmax 8y ago
    The gdpr doesn't prevent such thing. It just requires consent, care and empowerment.
    - ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
      The GDPR does not allow you to block people who do not consent. Well, it's never gone to court yet, so I guess you can't say for sure. But that's how it's widely interpreted.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - sametmax 8y ago
        Yes, you need consent. That's the point. That's good for us, the users. Services can still do all what they did before, but we need to agree.
      - diffeomorphism 8y ago
        Consent is meaningless if it is forced. Also, if the law allowed that, you would simply get a large banner saying "To access this website you agree to all our privacy invasion and to sell us your soul. We are not asking you, just informing you."
        ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
        Except you do have the choice not to view the site. If hackernews said give consent or leave, you could just close the tab.
  - mikekchar 8y ago
    > I'm pretty sure that if you asked people whether they would prefer to pay for Facebook and Google with cash or by sharing data for ad targeting, most would choose the latter. The GDPR specifically forbids that option. First, it's important to distinguish between the types of lawful bases with which you are processing data. For example, if you were to provide a service of targeting ads to people, you do not need consent to collect the data you need to target your ads: because you are simply fulfilling the contract. One of the problems with the current Facebooks and Googles of the world is that they assume you don't want targeted ads. I think this is an enormous mistake. Sign me up for targeted ads! I want them! I will freely give you information so that I can get targeted ads! In reality, the Faebooks of and Googles of the world are not offering targeted ads. They are offering indiscriminate ads and also selling your data. This is incredibly important to understand. Next, even if we decide to offer a service and ask for consent for collection of non-related information, there is nothing stopping us from paying for that collection (as far as I can tell). The law states that consent must be "freely given", however this "freely given" means that you can't threaten consequences for non-consent. There is no provision for thanking your customers. In other words, I'm pretty sure you can charge $5 a month for a service and then give $5 a month worth of credit as a thank you for being able to use your data. (Note: I tried to find some kind of verification of this, but was unable to find a discussion of it either way. I would be grateful for some evidence even if it contradicts my thesis ;-) ) However, there are massive caveats. First you must inform the customers what you are doing with their data and who your are sending it to. Second you must allow them to withdraw their consent. If they withdraw their consent then you must also do everything in your power to notify the downstream data processors to also stop using that data. And I think that's the real reason you don't see the Facebooks and Googles of the world trying this. They don't want to work with the data in a trackable way. They want to do whatever the heck they want with your data forever. They don't want to inform you that they've sent your data to an organisation that you might disapprove of. They don't want to allow you to cancel your consent without cancelling your service and also do whatever is necessary to stop the downstream processor from using your data if you object. There is usually a lot of vitriol here when we discuss GDPR however usually this is a result of distilling the argument down to an either/or situation. Either the company is an abusive monster or the law is trying to remove a legitimate business model. It overlooks the idea that there are serious problems with the way this business model works right now and the law attempts to improve that situation in ways that are both useful and frustrating. Edit: At the risk of bringing the wrath of the EU down upon my employer, I just realised that we offer a 25 GBP voucher for agreeing to sign up to our newsletter. So, there is at least 1 company who does this and I really don't think there is anything wrong with it.
- LoSboccacc 8y ago
  > Article 13 is terrible not because it’s terrible for start-ups, it’s terrible because it’s terrible for people. the two aren't mutually exclusive and Europe is right now in a deep growth slump also caused by middle class not moving into entrepreneurship due all the red tape and inefficiencies around having to deal with the particularities of every European state, with the EU aggregating without unifying a mess of regional particularities (i.e. vatmoss) we desperately need the EU to cater both to the individual and the small business interests working out the kinks of the common market.
  - krageon 8y ago
    VAT and a vast majority of the laws surrounding commerce at least are simple and have been abstracted away by various platforms ages ago. I invite you to read up on the subject and revise your stance (your premise may or may not be true, I will not claim to know either way) based on something that is actually true.
    - sisu2019 8y ago
      VAT is absolutely not abstracted away and intra-EU VAT is anything but simple. Why speak when you have no idea what you are talking about?
    - xxs 8y ago
      VAT is very far from simple across the EU and there have been recent changes for online shopping (depending on the amount/turnover per year if might be necessary to charge VAT based on the buyer residence instead of company registration) Another instance in most EU countries tips (in restaurants/bars) should be subject of VAT, not in the UK for instance. Different exceptions for deductibles like water for employees (but not coffee and so on)
    - sbacic 8y ago
      I think it all depends on how far you want to stretch the definition of "simple". I run a sole proprietorship and don't have to worry about national VAT until I cross a certain threshold. However, if I do business with customers in another EU state, I immediately need to account for VAT and report it. Add to that mistranslated directives (!), misinformed and uncooperative tax officials and you quickly realize that both "ease of doing business" and the single market are all a bunch of baloney. If I ever launch a B2C service, you can bet your ass I won't be aiming it at the EU market. I'll leave that for when I can afford an expert to handle all the bureaucratic nonsense that doing business in the EU involves.
kpcyrd 8y ago
GDPR regulates companies processing personal identifiable information, if your startup can't comply with that it shouldn't exist for the same reasons that a food startup that can't comply with food safety regulations shouldn't exist. Article 13 is straight up impossible to implement.
- LoSboccacc 8y ago
  > if your startup can't comply with that most startups can and will. but it basically adds up the requirement of lawyering up to every startup that wants to operate here de facto annihilating the possibility for single man operations to bootstrap an idea cashless.
  - krageon 8y ago
    It doesn't do that, because you don't need to toe the line.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - LoSboccacc 8y ago
      there's no avoiding gdpr. how do you do presales without? it's not just about the trackers. every information is impacted from prospect contacts book to hiring, all that information requires consent and a public policy and a dpo. and someone has to write that policy and someone has to be your dpo. and that's operating costs that a garage level startup will not be able to sustain.
      - krageon 8y ago
        Of course you are correct that the things you have just mentioned require some knowledge of the laws governing personal information. I just dispute the notion that this is required or even healthy. If you are of the position that the popular extremely invasive form of "marketing" is something that absolutely has to happen, then what I say will never apply to you. Especially as it pertains to it being self-evident that you're not violating anyone's rights.
eikxyz 8y ago
GDPR was never intended to be "good for startups". Just like pro-climate policies are never intended to be good for the economy. GDPR was intended to be good for peoples privacy. Pro-climate policies are meant to be good for the climate. Somethings gotta give. People are generally more important than startups. Climate is generally more important than economy. Because without people, there are no startups. And without climate, there is no economy, people, or startups.
- BurningFrog 8y ago
  You're contradicting yourself. > pro-climate policies are never intended to be good for the economy > without climate, there is no economy, people, or startups
  - KineticLensman 8y ago
    I think eikxyz means that pro-climate policies are not designed to allow quick profits; they will actually constrain some actors in the economy. They also may help to ensure the survival of the economy itself, so that at least some economic actors can still function.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - krageon 8y ago
    The thing to do here is to read everything this person has said and to take in the bigger picture of what they are trying to say. Focusing on the details like this is doing yourself a disservice, because it makes it look like you don't have the skills they taught you in school.
  - bryanrasmussen 8y ago
    That some benefits will naturally occur as a side effect of a policy does not actually change the intention of that policy.
- koonsolo 8y ago
  So who is benefiting from this article 13? The copyright holders. Not the people, not the startups, not the EU companies. There are things to be said about GDPR and climate, but not so much about article 13. It's just retarded and insane. These people have totally no clue. "Artificial intelligence can recognize faces today, filter out preferences and even park independently. It should be easy to distinguish between original and parody." - Says the Germany's equivalent to the RIAA https://twitter.com/gema_news/status/1098263167636041729 https://twitter.com/gema_news/status/1098263167636041729
golem14 8y ago
my 2 cents: A few days of outrage will do absolutely nothing to stop or change the law. AFAICT, many the EU bureaucrats and politicians fervently believe that they are doing the right thing here, even if it's clearly bonkers. It's like Brexit that way. Also: as said elsewhere, article 13 is probably all good news for YouTube, so I doubt that they do anything deeply confrontational. Plus, even if they did, they would just be portrayed as evil lobbying/scheming bastards arm twisting the EU into giving them what they want.
- koonsolo 8y ago
  > as said elsewhere, article 13 is probably all good news for YouTube This part is not clear to me. On one hand they are big enough to prevent copyrighted material being published. They could also offer filtering services to smaller parties. But on the other hand, YouTube is still full of copyrighted material. You can find basically any videoclip, cd-rip, or anything else on there. There are even entire movie rips on there, that regularly get deleted. Do they currently pay some big license owner a fee for this? I don't think so (but I'm not sure). So if this article 13 passes, YouTube will have to remove all of this material. Not only that, but they have to prevent such material being published in the first place. Or somehow make sure that a certain videoclip/cd-rip is payed off to the proper license owner. I'm not sure if it's even possible for YouTube to make such a filter, without having either a lot of false negatives or positives.
- clarry 8y ago
  > my 2 cents: A few days of outrage will do absolutely nothing to stop or change the law. Yep, it's going to be just another "oh lol there's a protest" and a week later nobody remembers it. I'd be happy if wikimedia just completely blocked all of Europe for a 2-3 weeks.
- IdiocyInAction 8y ago
  Well, there's an EU election soon, blocking for a couple of weeks before that would probably suffice to change a few minds.
gerdesj 8y ago
GDPR and Article 13 (in The Directive on Copyright) are totally different and unrelated things. I happen to be a small business owner in the EU and I have many customers who are the same. We all have registered with the ICO (UK) for something like £60 pa and filled in a short questionnaire. We have read the clear guidance on what records to keep and what to not keep - it's not rocket science. That is GDPR for most small businesses. Now, if your business is predicated on building profiles on people or pestering them on the phone or flogging ads etc then I can't help you there - it may be a pain. Now Article 13: It is designed to try and make the likes of YouTube responsible for not carrying copyrighted works by putting the onus back on them. I believe they hide behind carrier status. I understand that A13 looks a bit like an anti-meme effort but it isn't because that is generally covered by parody or reasonable use regulations. In the end, are you really sure you want the world to block us?
- dleslie 8y ago
  > In the end, are you really sure you want the world to block us? Yes. Let's end the cycle of pretending that we can prevent information from being free. Copyright is a dinosaur of an idea that belongs in the annals of history and out of the present.
  - okr 8y ago
    Unless someone has some work of their own, that other people start to use and make money off it. Then that one wants copyright. Then its no longer information flying free for everyone.
    - drywater 8y ago
      That is more on the side of licensing.
  - dingaling 8y ago
    > Copyright is a dinosaur of an idea that belongs in the annals of history and out of the present. Then don't copyright the content you make, just release it out into the public domain. Be the change you want to see. But let's be honest, the people most vocal against Article 13 are those who want to leech other people's creations for free. Not those people actually creating the content.
kondajaffa 8y ago
Yes
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
krageon 8y ago
Laws are for people, not companies. Thinking about startups before discussing it's impact on your fellow people is frankly a very worrying trend.
cyborgx7 8y ago
GDPR is good, Article 13 is bad. The constant conflating of the two by private data protection oponents is really wearing thin.
DanBC 8y ago
Have you read the content of article 13?
sacado2 8y ago
As a user, GDPR is great for me. As a user, article 13 is bad for me.
- pas 8y ago
  > As a user, article 13 is bad for me. Why?
  - ionised 8y ago
    Copyright law is already hideously draconian (in the US especially). Every fucking time the copyright cartels push for more power, more control, more leeway, they get it. It's been going on for a century or more, which is why we end up with ridiculous copyright terms like Life of Author + 70 years. The last thing I want is to give even more power to these obsolete middlemen to act as gatekeepers of information and culture. I'm not totally against copyright as an idea, but I'm certainly against the form of it we have now.
xxs 8y ago
There is nothing hard about implementing GDPR, esp. for startups that start from ground zero. The copyright directive is a whole different beast. Those two don't belong together. I am saying that after implementing GDPR for a large organization with millions of customers and multiple departments.
ionised 8y ago
GDPR was never meant to help business. It was intended to protect individuals from business. Honestly, if your business can't survive without adhering to basic data protection principles then the world is better of without your company.
StreamBright 8y ago
>> GDPR is bad enough for start ups What?? I have maned to full GDPR compliant product in several startups. What am I doing wrong?
pluma 8y ago
"Username checks out" as they say on the alien website.

jaifraic 8y ago

GDPR is just fine, if you've got your shit together and has some actual benefits for users, like being able to request all my saved data and its deletion. And of course disallowing websites handing my data to every possible ad network without my consent.

confounded 8y ago

Article 13 is terrible not because it’s terrible for start-ups, it’s terrible because it’s terrible for people. I’m pretty close to the rough-end of GDPR in my current job, but it represents real benefits for millions of people. If you asked them what’s a reasonable way to treat their data, I believe the GDPR is close-ish to what a lot of Europeans would want. Or, at least a shift in the right direction. Article 13 on the other hand is what you get if you ask rights-holders groups what they want, and poses a direct threat to freedom of expression for millions of Europeans.

orangecat 8y ago
If you asked them what’s a reasonable way to treat their data, I believe the GDPR is close-ish to what a lot of Europeans would want. I'm pretty sure that if you asked people whether they would prefer to pay for Facebook and Google with cash or by sharing data for ad targeting, most would choose the latter. The GDPR specifically forbids that option. Article 13 on the other hand is what you get if you ask rights-holders groups what they want, and poses a direct threat to freedom of expression for millions of Europeans. And it demonstrates the impossibility of having a powerful bureaucracy that does only the things that you want.
- sametmax 8y ago
  The gdpr doesn't prevent such thing. It just requires consent, care and empowerment.
  - ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
    The GDPR does not allow you to block people who do not consent. Well, it's never gone to court yet, so I guess you can't say for sure. But that's how it's widely interpreted.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - sametmax 8y ago
      Yes, you need consent. That's the point. That's good for us, the users. Services can still do all what they did before, but we need to agree.
    - diffeomorphism 8y ago
      Consent is meaningless if it is forced. Also, if the law allowed that, you would simply get a large banner saying "To access this website you agree to all our privacy invasion and to sell us your soul. We are not asking you, just informing you."
      - ApolloFortyNine 8y ago
        Except you do have the choice not to view the site. If hackernews said give consent or leave, you could just close the tab.
- mikekchar 8y ago
  > I'm pretty sure that if you asked people whether they would prefer to pay for Facebook and Google with cash or by sharing data for ad targeting, most would choose the latter. The GDPR specifically forbids that option. First, it's important to distinguish between the types of lawful bases with which you are processing data. For example, if you were to provide a service of targeting ads to people, you do not need consent to collect the data you need to target your ads: because you are simply fulfilling the contract. One of the problems with the current Facebooks and Googles of the world is that they assume you don't want targeted ads. I think this is an enormous mistake. Sign me up for targeted ads! I want them! I will freely give you information so that I can get targeted ads! In reality, the Faebooks of and Googles of the world are not offering targeted ads. They are offering indiscriminate ads and also selling your data. This is incredibly important to understand. Next, even if we decide to offer a service and ask for consent for collection of non-related information, there is nothing stopping us from paying for that collection (as far as I can tell). The law states that consent must be "freely given", however this "freely given" means that you can't threaten consequences for non-consent. There is no provision for thanking your customers. In other words, I'm pretty sure you can charge $5 a month for a service and then give $5 a month worth of credit as a thank you for being able to use your data. (Note: I tried to find some kind of verification of this, but was unable to find a discussion of it either way. I would be grateful for some evidence even if it contradicts my thesis ;-) ) However, there are massive caveats. First you must inform the customers what you are doing with their data and who your are sending it to. Second you must allow them to withdraw their consent. If they withdraw their consent then you must also do everything in your power to notify the downstream data processors to also stop using that data. And I think that's the real reason you don't see the Facebooks and Googles of the world trying this. They don't want to work with the data in a trackable way. They want to do whatever the heck they want with your data forever. They don't want to inform you that they've sent your data to an organisation that you might disapprove of. They don't want to allow you to cancel your consent without cancelling your service and also do whatever is necessary to stop the downstream processor from using your data if you object. There is usually a lot of vitriol here when we discuss GDPR however usually this is a result of distilling the argument down to an either/or situation. Either the company is an abusive monster or the law is trying to remove a legitimate business model. It overlooks the idea that there are serious problems with the way this business model works right now and the law attempts to improve that situation in ways that are both useful and frustrating. Edit: At the risk of bringing the wrath of the EU down upon my employer, I just realised that we offer a 25 GBP voucher for agreeing to sign up to our newsletter. So, there is at least 1 company who does this and I really don't think there is anything wrong with it.
LoSboccacc 8y ago
> Article 13 is terrible not because it’s terrible for start-ups, it’s terrible because it’s terrible for people. the two aren't mutually exclusive and Europe is right now in a deep growth slump also caused by middle class not moving into entrepreneurship due all the red tape and inefficiencies around having to deal with the particularities of every European state, with the EU aggregating without unifying a mess of regional particularities (i.e. vatmoss) we desperately need the EU to cater both to the individual and the small business interests working out the kinks of the common market.
- krageon 8y ago
  VAT and a vast majority of the laws surrounding commerce at least are simple and have been abstracted away by various platforms ages ago. I invite you to read up on the subject and revise your stance (your premise may or may not be true, I will not claim to know either way) based on something that is actually true.
  - sisu2019 8y ago
    VAT is absolutely not abstracted away and intra-EU VAT is anything but simple. Why speak when you have no idea what you are talking about?
  - xxs 8y ago
    VAT is very far from simple across the EU and there have been recent changes for online shopping (depending on the amount/turnover per year if might be necessary to charge VAT based on the buyer residence instead of company registration) Another instance in most EU countries tips (in restaurants/bars) should be subject of VAT, not in the UK for instance. Different exceptions for deductibles like water for employees (but not coffee and so on)
  - sbacic 8y ago
    I think it all depends on how far you want to stretch the definition of "simple". I run a sole proprietorship and don't have to worry about national VAT until I cross a certain threshold. However, if I do business with customers in another EU state, I immediately need to account for VAT and report it. Add to that mistranslated directives (!), misinformed and uncooperative tax officials and you quickly realize that both "ease of doing business" and the single market are all a bunch of baloney. If I ever launch a B2C service, you can bet your ass I won't be aiming it at the EU market. I'll leave that for when I can afford an expert to handle all the bureaucratic nonsense that doing business in the EU involves.

kpcyrd 8y ago

GDPR regulates companies processing personal identifiable information, if your startup can't comply with that it shouldn't exist for the same reasons that a food startup that can't comply with food safety regulations shouldn't exist. Article 13 is straight up impossible to implement.

LoSboccacc 8y ago
> if your startup can't comply with that most startups can and will. but it basically adds up the requirement of lawyering up to every startup that wants to operate here de facto annihilating the possibility for single man operations to bootstrap an idea cashless.
- krageon 8y ago
  It doesn't do that, because you don't need to toe the line.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - LoSboccacc 8y ago
    there's no avoiding gdpr. how do you do presales without? it's not just about the trackers. every information is impacted from prospect contacts book to hiring, all that information requires consent and a public policy and a dpo. and someone has to write that policy and someone has to be your dpo. and that's operating costs that a garage level startup will not be able to sustain.
    - krageon 8y ago
      Of course you are correct that the things you have just mentioned require some knowledge of the laws governing personal information. I just dispute the notion that this is required or even healthy. If you are of the position that the popular extremely invasive form of "marketing" is something that absolutely has to happen, then what I say will never apply to you. Especially as it pertains to it being self-evident that you're not violating anyone's rights.

eikxyz 8y ago

GDPR was never intended to be "good for startups". Just like pro-climate policies are never intended to be good for the economy. GDPR was intended to be good for peoples privacy. Pro-climate policies are meant to be good for the climate. Somethings gotta give. People are generally more important than startups. Climate is generally more important than economy. Because without people, there are no startups. And without climate, there is no economy, people, or startups.

BurningFrog 8y ago
You're contradicting yourself. > pro-climate policies are never intended to be good for the economy > without climate, there is no economy, people, or startups
- KineticLensman 8y ago
  I think eikxyz means that pro-climate policies are not designed to allow quick profits; they will actually constrain some actors in the economy. They also may help to ensure the survival of the economy itself, so that at least some economic actors can still function.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- krageon 8y ago
  The thing to do here is to read everything this person has said and to take in the bigger picture of what they are trying to say. Focusing on the details like this is doing yourself a disservice, because it makes it look like you don't have the skills they taught you in school.
- bryanrasmussen 8y ago
  That some benefits will naturally occur as a side effect of a policy does not actually change the intention of that policy.
koonsolo 8y ago
So who is benefiting from this article 13? The copyright holders. Not the people, not the startups, not the EU companies. There are things to be said about GDPR and climate, but not so much about article 13. It's just retarded and insane. These people have totally no clue. "Artificial intelligence can recognize faces today, filter out preferences and even park independently. It should be easy to distinguish between original and parody." - Says the Germany's equivalent to the RIAA https://twitter.com/gema_news/status/1098263167636041729 https://twitter.com/gema_news/status/1098263167636041729

golem14 8y ago

my 2 cents: A few days of outrage will do absolutely nothing to stop or change the law. AFAICT, many the EU bureaucrats and politicians fervently believe that they are doing the right thing here, even if it's clearly bonkers. It's like Brexit that way. Also: as said elsewhere, article 13 is probably all good news for YouTube, so I doubt that they do anything deeply confrontational. Plus, even if they did, they would just be portrayed as evil lobbying/scheming bastards arm twisting the EU into giving them what they want.

koonsolo 8y ago
> as said elsewhere, article 13 is probably all good news for YouTube This part is not clear to me. On one hand they are big enough to prevent copyrighted material being published. They could also offer filtering services to smaller parties. But on the other hand, YouTube is still full of copyrighted material. You can find basically any videoclip, cd-rip, or anything else on there. There are even entire movie rips on there, that regularly get deleted. Do they currently pay some big license owner a fee for this? I don't think so (but I'm not sure). So if this article 13 passes, YouTube will have to remove all of this material. Not only that, but they have to prevent such material being published in the first place. Or somehow make sure that a certain videoclip/cd-rip is payed off to the proper license owner. I'm not sure if it's even possible for YouTube to make such a filter, without having either a lot of false negatives or positives.
clarry 8y ago
> my 2 cents: A few days of outrage will do absolutely nothing to stop or change the law. Yep, it's going to be just another "oh lol there's a protest" and a week later nobody remembers it. I'd be happy if wikimedia just completely blocked all of Europe for a 2-3 weeks.
IdiocyInAction 8y ago
Well, there's an EU election soon, blocking for a couple of weeks before that would probably suffice to change a few minds.

gerdesj 8y ago

GDPR and Article 13 (in The Directive on Copyright) are totally different and unrelated things. I happen to be a small business owner in the EU and I have many customers who are the same. We all have registered with the ICO (UK) for something like £60 pa and filled in a short questionnaire. We have read the clear guidance on what records to keep and what to not keep - it's not rocket science. That is GDPR for most small businesses. Now, if your business is predicated on building profiles on people or pestering them on the phone or flogging ads etc then I can't help you there - it may be a pain. Now Article 13: It is designed to try and make the likes of YouTube responsible for not carrying copyrighted works by putting the onus back on them. I believe they hide behind carrier status. I understand that A13 looks a bit like an anti-meme effort but it isn't because that is generally covered by parody or reasonable use regulations. In the end, are you really sure you want the world to block us?

dleslie 8y ago
> In the end, are you really sure you want the world to block us? Yes. Let's end the cycle of pretending that we can prevent information from being free. Copyright is a dinosaur of an idea that belongs in the annals of history and out of the present.
- okr 8y ago
  Unless someone has some work of their own, that other people start to use and make money off it. Then that one wants copyright. Then its no longer information flying free for everyone.
  - drywater 8y ago
    That is more on the side of licensing.
- dingaling 8y ago
  > Copyright is a dinosaur of an idea that belongs in the annals of history and out of the present. Then don't copyright the content you make, just release it out into the public domain. Be the change you want to see. But let's be honest, the people most vocal against Article 13 are those who want to leech other people's creations for free. Not those people actually creating the content.

kondajaffa 8y ago

Yes

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

krageon 8y ago

Laws are for people, not companies. Thinking about startups before discussing it's impact on your fellow people is frankly a very worrying trend.

cyborgx7 8y ago

GDPR is good, Article 13 is bad. The constant conflating of the two by private data protection oponents is really wearing thin.

DanBC 8y ago

Have you read the content of article 13?

sacado2 8y ago

As a user, GDPR is great for me. As a user, article 13 is bad for me.

pas 8y ago
> As a user, article 13 is bad for me. Why?
- ionised 8y ago
  Copyright law is already hideously draconian (in the US especially). Every fucking time the copyright cartels push for more power, more control, more leeway, they get it. It's been going on for a century or more, which is why we end up with ridiculous copyright terms like Life of Author + 70 years. The last thing I want is to give even more power to these obsolete middlemen to act as gatekeepers of information and culture. I'm not totally against copyright as an idea, but I'm certainly against the form of it we have now.

xxs 8y ago

There is nothing hard about implementing GDPR, esp. for startups that start from ground zero. The copyright directive is a whole different beast. Those two don't belong together. I am saying that after implementing GDPR for a large organization with millions of customers and multiple departments.

ionised 8y ago

GDPR was never meant to help business. It was intended to protect individuals from business. Honestly, if your business can't survive without adhering to basic data protection principles then the world is better of without your company.

StreamBright 8y ago

>> GDPR is bad enough for start ups What?? I have maned to full GDPR compliant product in several startups. What am I doing wrong?

pluma 8y ago

"Username checks out" as they say on the alien website.