16 ms·

Website would only be bankrupt unless it does absolutely nothing to verify content. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47239600 https://www.bbc.com/news/techn

by llukas 8y ago

Website would only be bankrupt unless it does absolutely nothing to verify content. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47239600 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47239600

WA 8y ago
And what do you think can be done somewhat cheaply on every blog out there that has a comment function and allows someone to upload excerpts of Harry Potter? The bare minimum technical solution seems to be excessive. You need some kind of "Shazam for all the things", which can identify copyrighted material by having a small snippet. And for that you actually need a huge database with fingerprints or whatever of copyrighted material. Please let us know if you have a simple and cheap solution that every blog owner can implement (without high costs).
- llukas 8y ago
  Article 13 will not let Amazon sell books that were pirated (ie. re-uploaded) and claim everything is fine. They do didn't wanted to fix it so now they will be forced to. For Joe blogger there is proportionality (https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Art_13_unofficial.pdf https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Art_13_unoff... - 4a). And if Joe blogger decides to open comment section then he should read it every so often. If not then this Harry Potter excerpt would be hard to find among spam overflowing comment section.
  - WA 8y ago
    So, merely deleting a comment is enough? But that’s what we had before. Aren’t you required to have some kind of upload filter so that copyrighted material never ends up in your comments in the first place?
    - llukas 8y ago
      You are ignoring "proportionality" part and "not liable if" part. Yes EU regulators wouldn't be chasing small blogs just like they do not do it with GDPR regulations. Big boys like Amazon wouldn't be able to get away with this shit (ends up on HN regularly): https://www.extremetech.com/internet/268109-an-update-on-my-stolen-book-and-job-on-amazon https://www.extremetech.com/internet/268109-an-update-on-my-... https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/01/02/amazon-scams-on-the-rise-in-2017-as-fraudulent-sellers-run-amok-and-profit-big/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/01/02/amazon-s... Now you tell me how do you make Amazon and similar not to profit off scam? Ask them nicely? Doesn't work.
      - ben_w 8y ago
        In debates like this, I tend to mention that UK law has prison time for commercial copyright infringement. Not being a lawyer, I have no idea how hard it is for a prosecutor to get that outcome. (So far as opinion, I would like copyright duration reduced to 7 years from publication, but suspect it is easier to make a human-level-creative AI then to change the law).
      - raverbashing 8y ago
        The Amazon example is not exactly related to the current issue and copyright violation already exists in law. > Now you tell me how do you make Amazon and similar not to profit off scam? The fact that they're selling a plagiarized book is grounds for a lawsuit from the author.
      - anonymousab 8y ago
        How would you automatically distinguish between copyrighted material and parody/satire/fair use? Google seems to have had such a hard time doing so that it has the appearance that they've given up
      - hyperman1 8y ago
        For the GDPR, only the regulator can sue. Everyone else can only complain to the regulator. This minimizes the number of possible suits. For article 13, everybody can sue. And copyright already has lows like grannies without internet ending up in a court for alleged file sharing. the 2 laws are not even remotely comparable.
    - tobylane 8y ago
      >So, merely deleting a comment is enough? But that’s what we had before. This, and the successfulness of GDPR, is why I'm so doubtful over the problems presented about Article 13.
- dingaling 8y ago
  Any blog or forum needs administration, as part of which off-topic or copyright-infringing messages should be deleted. "Stay on topic and post only content that is your original work". What is being targetted here are websites that rely on infringement for their popularity and traffic and ad revenue.
  - freshm087 8y ago
    Any blog or forum needs administration I'm not sure why are you stating this like some sort of undisputable truth.
    - walterstucco 8y ago
      Because it is in Europe
- doh 8y ago
  Let me state first that Article 13 is a very dangerous idea that will have bad consequences. That said, we're making our Attribution engine (the shazam for all audio-visual content) free to all platforms and rights holders [0]. It's surely not a great situation, but we don't want to stay still and let the small platforms to crumble under the weight of the giants. [0] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CLybxCFg_gz4n62UqVr3XEsyYJbEv6hGI64-ptGgQB0/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CLybxCFg_gz4n62UqVr3XEsy...
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    Is this actually helpful? It seems like there are really two options here. One is that you can have your own database of copyrighted works, let anyone submit one, and the law considers that sufficient. But then everyone has their own database that starts with nothing in it, none of them really ever have more than 1% of the total copyrighted works in them nor ever really catch anything, and uploading everything to everyone's database is completely intractable so nobody bothers. The other is that having an incomplete database is insufficient, but having a complete database is still intractable because anyone else can at any time create a new copyrighted work that isn't in it. And then troll you with it because they know it isn't in any database but can have someone upload it to your site just so they can use the law to destroy you. No database will ever contain more than 1% of the total copyrighted works, because they're created by the millions every minute of every day. So does pooling together like that actually buy you something? It doesn't seem to change the "are you screwed" calculus much one way or the other.
    - doh 8y ago
      The way we read the article 13 is that platforms have to offer tools to identify copyrighted work, but also the rights holders have to register the work for them to be identified. That would imply that one database with an obvious way for rights holders to register their content should be the right way to go. But we will not know up until an EU country actually writes the law.
      - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
- chopin 8y ago
  Limit the comment to 1000 characters.

by llukas 8y ago

Website would only be bankrupt unless it does absolutely nothing to verify content. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47239600 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47239600

WA 8y ago

And what do you think can be done somewhat cheaply on every blog out there that has a comment function and allows someone to upload excerpts of Harry Potter? The bare minimum technical solution seems to be excessive. You need some kind of "Shazam for all the things", which can identify copyrighted material by having a small snippet. And for that you actually need a huge database with fingerprints or whatever of copyrighted material. Please let us know if you have a simple and cheap solution that every blog owner can implement (without high costs).

llukas 8y ago
Article 13 will not let Amazon sell books that were pirated (ie. re-uploaded) and claim everything is fine. They do didn't wanted to fix it so now they will be forced to. For Joe blogger there is proportionality (https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Art_13_unofficial.pdf https://juliareda.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Art_13_unoff... - 4a). And if Joe blogger decides to open comment section then he should read it every so often. If not then this Harry Potter excerpt would be hard to find among spam overflowing comment section.
- WA 8y ago
  So, merely deleting a comment is enough? But that’s what we had before. Aren’t you required to have some kind of upload filter so that copyrighted material never ends up in your comments in the first place?
  - llukas 8y ago
    You are ignoring "proportionality" part and "not liable if" part. Yes EU regulators wouldn't be chasing small blogs just like they do not do it with GDPR regulations. Big boys like Amazon wouldn't be able to get away with this shit (ends up on HN regularly): https://www.extremetech.com/internet/268109-an-update-on-my-stolen-book-and-job-on-amazon https://www.extremetech.com/internet/268109-an-update-on-my-... https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/01/02/amazon-scams-on-the-rise-in-2017-as-fraudulent-sellers-run-amok-and-profit-big/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2017/01/02/amazon-s... Now you tell me how do you make Amazon and similar not to profit off scam? Ask them nicely? Doesn't work.
    - ben_w 8y ago
      In debates like this, I tend to mention that UK law has prison time for commercial copyright infringement. Not being a lawyer, I have no idea how hard it is for a prosecutor to get that outcome. (So far as opinion, I would like copyright duration reduced to 7 years from publication, but suspect it is easier to make a human-level-creative AI then to change the law).
    - raverbashing 8y ago
      The Amazon example is not exactly related to the current issue and copyright violation already exists in law. > Now you tell me how do you make Amazon and similar not to profit off scam? The fact that they're selling a plagiarized book is grounds for a lawsuit from the author.
    - anonymousab 8y ago
      How would you automatically distinguish between copyrighted material and parody/satire/fair use? Google seems to have had such a hard time doing so that it has the appearance that they've given up
    - hyperman1 8y ago
      For the GDPR, only the regulator can sue. Everyone else can only complain to the regulator. This minimizes the number of possible suits. For article 13, everybody can sue. And copyright already has lows like grannies without internet ending up in a court for alleged file sharing. the 2 laws are not even remotely comparable.
  - tobylane 8y ago
    >So, merely deleting a comment is enough? But that’s what we had before. This, and the successfulness of GDPR, is why I'm so doubtful over the problems presented about Article 13.
dingaling 8y ago
Any blog or forum needs administration, as part of which off-topic or copyright-infringing messages should be deleted. "Stay on topic and post only content that is your original work". What is being targetted here are websites that rely on infringement for their popularity and traffic and ad revenue.
- freshm087 8y ago
  Any blog or forum needs administration I'm not sure why are you stating this like some sort of undisputable truth.
  - walterstucco 8y ago
    Because it is in Europe
doh 8y ago
Let me state first that Article 13 is a very dangerous idea that will have bad consequences. That said, we're making our Attribution engine (the shazam for all audio-visual content) free to all platforms and rights holders [0]. It's surely not a great situation, but we don't want to stay still and let the small platforms to crumble under the weight of the giants. [0] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CLybxCFg_gz4n62UqVr3XEsyYJbEv6hGI64-ptGgQB0/edit?usp=sharing https://docs.google.com/document/d/1CLybxCFg_gz4n62UqVr3XEsy...
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago
  Is this actually helpful? It seems like there are really two options here. One is that you can have your own database of copyrighted works, let anyone submit one, and the law considers that sufficient. But then everyone has their own database that starts with nothing in it, none of them really ever have more than 1% of the total copyrighted works in them nor ever really catch anything, and uploading everything to everyone's database is completely intractable so nobody bothers. The other is that having an incomplete database is insufficient, but having a complete database is still intractable because anyone else can at any time create a new copyrighted work that isn't in it. And then troll you with it because they know it isn't in any database but can have someone upload it to your site just so they can use the law to destroy you. No database will ever contain more than 1% of the total copyrighted works, because they're created by the millions every minute of every day. So does pooling together like that actually buy you something? It doesn't seem to change the "are you screwed" calculus much one way or the other.
  - doh 8y ago
    The way we read the article 13 is that platforms have to offer tools to identify copyrighted work, but also the rights holders have to register the work for them to be identified. That would imply that one database with an obvious way for rights holders to register their content should be the right way to go. But we will not know up until an EU country actually writes the law.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
chopin 8y ago
Limit the comment to 1000 characters.